JAY JANSON—The many bloody and thieving wars ordered by President Obama should make people recall how Obama as a candidate for president ran as a peace candidate, and so be cautioned not to be fooled with the present promising of both this years candidates to end America’s forever wars. Recently, President Trump called the Vietnam War “a stupid war. Anyone who went was a sucker.” With all President Trump’s macabre and bizarre use of US military, including assassination and deadly sanctions, and mainstream media’s consistent wars promoting, the world is prone to forget how candidate Trump was the most dramatic American denouncer of US wars in history.
VIRTUAL UNIVERSITY
-
-
Sinophobia, Lies and Hybrid War: “The Nation Which Unleashed This Plague…” according to Donald Trump at the UN General Assembly
15 minutes readPEPE ESCOBAR—As President Putin has made it very clear over and over again, the US is no longer “agreement capable” . As for the “rules-based international order”, at best is a euphemism for privately controlled financial capitalism on a global scale. The Russia-China strategic partnership has made it very clear, over and over again, that against NATO and Quad expansion their project hinges on Eurasia-wide trade, development and diplomatic integration. Unlike the case from the 16th century to the last decades of the 20th century, now the initiative is not coming from the West, but from East Asia (that’s the beauty of “initiative” incorporated to the BRI acronym).
-
The End Of The ‘Rules Based International Order’
42 minutes readMoA—That the ‘rules based international order’ is supposed to include vague concepts of ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’, ‘fundamental freedoms’, ‘diversity’ and more makes it easy to claim that this or that violation of the ‘rules based international order’ has occurred. Such violations can then be used to impose punishment in the form of sanctions or war. That the above definition was given by a minority of a few rich nations makes it already clear that it can not be a global concept for a multilateral world.
-
Dr. Strangelove’s Spoon Benders: How the U.S. Military Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
30 minutes readCYNTHIA CHUNG—According to a 1998 International Committee of the Red Cross presentation before the European parliament intended on evaluating how “non-lethal” the non-lethal technologies promoted by Alexander, Channon et al. actually are in reality, it was found that non-lethal weapons are simply defined as weapons with a less-than 25% fatality rate. Perhaps this is what the senior Pentagon officials were referring to in their “limited” nuclear exchange scenarios. Included in the list of non-lethal weapons now widely used in the U.S. military are lasers, extremely low frequency (ELF) weapons, and various chemical, biological and audio stun weapons that can cause permanent damage such as blindness, deafness and destruction of the gastrointestinal system. According to Ronson and The New Yorker writer Jane Mayer, many of the torture techniques employed at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and the less-well-known al-Qa’im near the Syrian border in Iraq, are based on Channon and Alexander’s non-lethal conceptions. Jim Channon actually confirmed this in an email correspondence with Ronson.
-
ELIJAH MAGNIER—In the Levant, both US and Russian forces are present in a small area, but with different goals, interests and reasons. Russia seeks the unity of Syria because it is its region of influence. Long-term stability must be established there as an example to other nations. That is not an easy goal to achieve when the US is operating in Syria, interfering with the flow of food, oil and gas in an area considered to be the resource reservoir of the entire country.